According to a press release distributed by the pro-marijuana law reform group Minnesotans for Compassionate Care, the bills have the maximum numbers of sponsors in each chamber -- 35 in the House and five in the Senate.

In March, Heather Azzi, political director of Minnesotans for Compassionate Care, said that while she expected a medical marijuana bill to be introduced this session, she doesn't foresee it progressing through legislative committees quite yet. Indeed, Politics in Minnesota reports that "policy deadlines have long since passed," but by introducing it this year, medical marijuana backers will position their bill to be ready for discussion next session.

-- Follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter at @atrupar. Got a tip? Drop him a line at arupar@citypages.com.

@Mark Michalski The article doesn't say that it's going to *pass*, does it? It says it's going to be *introduced*. Do you know what that means? It means that, *maybe*, there will be a vote on it next session. Not passage. Just a vote.

Also, medical marijuana is not the same as legalisation.

The tone of the article is pretty sceptical, but you seem to think that the author is *promising* passage, which you find "funny".

In short, I kind of doubt that you read anything but the headline -- and you barely comprehended even that little bit. You're funny.

You can't buy a bottle of Mad Dog on a Sunday, but you can get Percocet *with a prescription*, can't you?

You do realise that a startling number of powerful narcotics are already available *by prescription* right now, don't you?

Is it possible that you are too dense to understand the difference between something being legal to buy at the corner gas station, and something being available to be procured at a pharmacy with a prescription?

@green23 Calm down, nobody is disagreeing with you. Everyone is voicing their skepticism and cynicism, which is very valid. We live in a state where people actually think Michele Bachmann would make a good politician - what makes you think we'll elect anyone who actually works for the voters? We can't even get them to repeal the ban on Sunday liquor sales! Trust me, we're all on your side. Clearly, 2 out of 3 MNs are behind this, so one would think this would go through. Again, we elect idiots that are easily bought and sold.

@xaulxan@green23 People are voicing their scepticism over full legalisation, not the very limited medical marijuana (for terminally ill patients) legislation mentioned in the article.

Again, unless someone has a prescription for alcohol, I really don't see what Sunday liquor sales have to with terminally ill people filling a prescription for marijuana -- unless, of course, you are conflating medical marijuana for the terminally ill with full legalisation. Is that what you (and others here) are doing? If so, that's kind of my point.

Also, this already has gone through once before. As it says in the article, it passed in 2009. If anything, views have changed in the interim to be even more favourable. Hey, you know what? Sunday liquor sales were still illegal in 2009 when it passed. People still voted for Bachmann back then. Those elected legislators that don't work for the voters actually passed it in 2009.

So all of your 'reasons' are faulty. The only reason it won't pass is because stupid people want to make it seem as if passing this legislation is the same as full legalisation. Do you see any stupid people here that think passing this bill is the same as full legalisation? I sure do.